Victoria Derbyshire today and Girlguides

[AgnesBadenPowell]

Did anyone see Victoria Derbyshire on BBC2 this morning? Interesting discussion about transgender people and self ID. One of the speakers mentioned Girlguiding, which caught my attention as I am a Leader and I’ve had similar concerns but few people to discuss it with IRL.

You might have seen the press coverage (and threads here) about the changes to Girlguiding UK’s policy on inclusivity for transgender members

As a leader it’s my duty to implement the policy. I also have a duty of care to the girls in my unit. I’ve thought long and hard about this and in my view, GG has got it wrong.

GGUK recognises gender self identity, which is “a person’s inner sense of being a girl or a woman”. A male child who identifies as a girl can enroll as a rainbow, brownie, guide or ranger and a male who identifies as a woman can make the Guide promise and become a leader. Leadership roles have historically been women only (although men can volunteer for support roles that don’t need the promise and aren’t in charge of units).

The policy states that transgender children should use the accommodation of their acquired gender on camp. Parents of other children should not be informed - leaders are told it is neither required or best practice. Remember that Guiding also permits adult leaders (including men who identify as women) to share accommodation with children; it’s not the preferred option and at least 2 adults should always be present in the tent or guide hut but it does happen.

I have written to GGUK to outline my concerns:

1. the policy allows, for example, a 14 yo biological male Guide to share sleeping accommodation with a 10 year old female Guide.NSPCC advice is that children over 10 do not share a bedroom with the opposite sex. It’s not unreasonable for parents to expect GG to follow this advice. Why aren’t we?

1. The policy does not acknowledge the embarrassment a teen may feel when dealing with periods, washing and bathing in shared facilities with a person they may have known as a boy.

1. The policy is focused on the needs of the transchild and their preferences. As a Leader I have a duty to all children in my care and must balance each of their needs. Only in reference to changing clothes does the policy state that all children should be offered a more private place to change if desired, otherwise transchildren chose what facilities they use with no reference to their fellow guides.

1. If GG cannot guarantee truly single sex accommodation then some girls will miss out on residentials, eg girls from certain religious groups, those who have been subjected to abuse or who just don’t want to. This is against GG’s inclusive ethos

So far GG has responded with (template?) emails to say that GG has always been a single gender organisation, gender identity (as defined above) is recognised as separate from biological sex and Leaders should refer concerned parents to the higher ups.

Today’s TV show made me wonder how many people really understand the implications of the policy and have similar concerns. Leaders can't discuss other children with parents (rightIy so) but that means parents can't give informed consent to their child sharing mixed sex facilities. I'd like to gauge the feeling of parents but it's a sensitive issue and not something that I can just ask my girls’ parents. Perhaps you think I am over reacting. Perhaps you share my concerns. Either way, I’d like to know.

Finally, I should add that I’m not trying to have transgirls removed from GG. Neither do I think all men/boys are potential sex offenders. But I do owe it to the parents and children in my care to have assessed all the risks thoroughly. My point is that this policy poses a risk, which doesn't appear to be recognised by GG and Leaders aren't being advised how to manage it.

I do have to pop out for a bit now but will come back later, if anyone replies!

TBH it is not just the risk of a girl being abused by a TIM on an overnight camp that concerns me. Stick two 14 year olds of the opposite sex in a tent overnight, and raging teen hormones on both sides could mean the risk of pregnancy is still there - for one of them at least.

I would be interested to hear if GG policy is available in other languages?

Such an interesting - and scary - read; thanks all. I'm a gender critical owl too (Brownie leader) with a Guide daughter who is looking forward to her first Guide camp in the summer.

Heard the last Chief Guide (who stepped down a year or so ago) talk about growing Guiding. She'd run groups in the 60s and 70s for girls from cultures where they were only allowed access to single-sex groups. One of her messages was to grow Guiding, strict Muslim families were a good place to start! I wonder what she thinks of the new policy.

I'm worried about this organisation that I love and that I think does so much for girls. In my unit, there are quiet shy girls who would never thrive like they do with boys in the group. And the safeguarding issue is horrendous - why can't GG see that?

Happy to join your group, drspouse, if you'll have me.

Yes I saw that Sema but it is wilful blindness to pretend that girls are the ones deciding not to associate with boys. Even if they argue that it's not linked to certain cultures, they must acknowledge that there are families who do not allow girls to go to mixed sex groups, and thus they are accepting that by choosing to move away from a single sex environment that they will exclude these girls.

It's so infuriating - they're refusing to take responsibility for further limiting the possibilities for these girls and hiding behind trite phrases as if the girls are CHOOSING to exclude themselves even though they blatantly know that's not the case.

I’m also moving further away from the “bad man” problem. Plenty of organisations you can join/things you can do if you’re a disgusting human that wants access to children.

I’m hugely concerned about the risk of pregnancy, which could easily occur from this, whether the sex was consensual or not. I also really strongly feel that it is ok to not need to suggest worst case scenarios. Yes an abusive TIM could be leader but the smallest most immediate thing is that girls would be made uncomfortable in a space where they should thrive. It silences their voices if they are not allowed to object.

It is enough. It is enough to say that there is a space for girls that doesn’t include males. It is enough to say - no, that would be unfair to these girls. No. We are allowed these spaces under the Equality Act and that’s what I’m going to do. Uphold current law. That’s all. No debate about who, when, what should happen, x, y or z. Female spaces should not be up for discussion.

Nobody has the backs of these teenage girls. Parents yes, but no public organisation is coming out in support of female only spaces - it’s all budge up ladies, shush, ignore your boundaries, you don’t matter. Is it any wonder these girls are thinking, “fuck this, being a girl is awful, I’d rather be a boy thanks” and being referred to the Tavi in their hordes.

What makes me so angry is the selfishness of these boys who think that they're girls (and their parents). They have the option of a mixed sex uniformed organisation, but for some girls they are only allowed single-sex or nothing.

These girls are then denied the wonderful opportunities that Guiding can provide as they won't be allowed access to Guiding or Scouting. Just like with the swimming ponds where males can now access 3/3 leaving some girls and women with 0. Pure selfishness.

I thought you may be interested in this story. My DH volunteers for a mixed sex organisation. He was in charge of an international camp (age range of attendees at camp 16-20) with additional adult help from the various countries with young adults attending.
The accommodation was male and female according to their passports. DH discovered a girl in the boys' sleeping area at bedtime and asked her to move. She claimed she self-id'd as a boy and wanted to sleep with the boys and would share (there weren't any free beds available in the male accommodation) My DH made the decision to evict her back into her allocated bed.
He had a few boys come to him to ask why 'he' was forced to sleep with the girls. My DH explained that her passport said female therefore DH was obliged to safeguard both them and her as per her passport. It was a Sunday night and he had to make this decision unilaterally as none of the other adults wanted 'to be involved' and he couldn't obtain a reply from HQ. DH spent a worried 24hrs waiting for HQs decision and the country involved reply. Luckily it was a few years ago and everyone backed him but he, recently admitted he wouldn't like to take bets on everyone backing him if the same thing happened today!

Bottom line is that GG have stated that there is no need for girls to have any room or space away from boys and men in their lives.

That is a big change and a big kids for girls.

The idea that they have and NSPCC has that sex is irrelevant when it comes to safeguarding is grade A nursing. That a boy who says he's a girl literally and immediately becomes a girl, I mean, ???

Why are they bothering with all their stuff about sexual harassment in schools etc then? It doesn't fit with their new ideas at all.

The cubs and scouts have historically a horrendous reputation for some terrible abuse cases. To be fair to them, they were in the vanguard of developing effective safeguarding policies as they really had been targeted by those seeking to abuse children.

It seems so ironic that despite this collective knowledge, the Guides are minimising safeguarding risks. They must know what the risks are of opening up single sex spaces like this but they are completely ignoring it. The likelihood of predators using self ID to access vulnerable girls is significant - be it teenagers confused about their identity or autogynephile adults (with a sexual fetish for being seen as a women).

Utterly depressing and frightening. Personally I would be very wary of taking any level of responsibility in an organisation with such a disdain for boundaries as presumably, if anything goes wrong it will be the leaders who will end up in court rather than those who attended the Gendered Intelligence training and wrote the policy / guidelines??

"GG has always been a single gender organisation"

No, when it was formed it was a single SEX organisation.
Because then sex and gender were considered synonymous.

Imho GG should remain single sex, ie boys don't join regardless of how they identify

Nobody has the backs of these teenage girls.

EXACTLY.

I’m so pissed off with this. I keep going over it and poor DH’s ears are ringing with my ranting. I can’t help thinking it’s akin to TIMs who want in to refuges, whether as a “survivor” or a volunteer. The type of TIMs who want this are incredibly unlikely to be nice people, because nice people wouldn’t force themselves upon vulnerable women for the validation/power trip/general shits and giggles. I don’t think any TIM or boy wants in to Guides because they’re a girl and they desperately want to be a Guide. The only boys and men who want in to Guides are exactly the type you don’t want, entitled troublemakers who will need all attention on them because they can’t bear girls and women to have even the tiniest space to themselves.

I feel like taking a bloody great big ad out on Facebook targeted at Guides and parents of Guides saying listen girls, I will fucking fight this to the death. I’m with you, I hear you, I see you.

Probs can’t say fuck in Guides though

Bar the trans sleeping issue, shouldn't the safeguarding be in place anyway the same as scouts regardless of mix? As the risk of abuse is the same, older children abusing younger, leaders abusing children - gender doesn't come into that element of safeguarding.

E.g No girls going into other girls tents, no leaders on their own with 1 child?

For an organisation that was so hell bent on not allowing boys in, this does seem a very illogical stance.

I've been involved with guides in one form or another for the last 19 years, currently I'm only a parent. Until gga come to their senses my dd will not attend any overnight events. She loses out but also stays safe. The challenges and discrimination my daughter will face in life is based on sex not gender. Sex matters.

We do currently have no leaders alone with a single girl.

Thanks all for your responses. I will post another thread in chat or AIBU but just haven't had time today. It may be tomorrow now.

I'm also considering a petition as a means of showing GG just how many people think they've got this wrong. Will keep you posted on this.

I'm still seeking legal advice (it's taking time to find a team to take this on) and in the meantime will write to GGHQ again - the entire senior leadership team and each trustee will get a letter. As some pp suggested, I'll also take it up with the charity commission. Thanks for all your suggestions about what I should say and how I should say it. My original letter was lengthy and covered multiple issues around gender identity - I will made the next one punchier.

I would encourage all concerned parents to write to GGHQ about this. But I also wonder if guiders should maybe make a joint approach - strength and safety in numbers?

I'd be happy to donate to a crowd funder too.
There is such cognitive dissonance between the founding principles of the GGs and this recent shift.
Basically GG becomes another organisation where parents have to consider opting their DCs out of certain activities/talks/workshops/events.
They've changed from an organisation that empowered girls to one that teaches them to prioritise male feelings above all else. That makes me incredibly angry.

I don’t have female children and I have no adult involevent in Guiding, but if I did there’s no fucking way I would let my children go on trips with an organisation that has such a loose grasp on basic safeguarding practice or is prepared to conceal information which is material to parental consent. I’d also be furious about being expected to share sleeping and bathing facilities with a surprise TIM and I would insist on female only. I have rights too and a desire for privacy/safety.

Essentially they've just changed the goal posts to allow boys to join but without talking about the safeguarding issues that surrounds it.
Have they issued any guidance at all how to deal with it? I know our school have just written policies and procedures for trans children, they don't have any yet but are being prepared. They should have issued that along with training for every leader. Just saying "you HAVE to accept them" is not good enough. Guides is a voluntary organisation, how on earth would it cope if all its leaders just went "naaa sorry".

I think guides are just shitting themselves on the equality factor, but they seemed to have just handed the ticking bomb to the leaders to deal with.

Are there any parents of brownies or guides who would be prepared to speak out about this?

@Badgerthebodger - could you be openly critical about this irl? Message me and lets chat if you like.

Guides is a voluntary organisation, how on earth would it cope if all its leaders just went "naaa sorry".

But when the leaders do that, the girls miss out. Either on camps and similar if they stop doing those activities, or on the whole GG experience if the leaders all opt out.

It makes me sad.

I would not be happy for my daughter to go on guide trips with 'mixed sex' accommodation. Firstly because there is something special about the guides being only for girls and free from the usual pressures around bodies, make up, constant social media and never ending pink onslaught of their childhoods. Secondly, because the trips are quite intense times where strong friendships are forged and there is an obvious risk that natal boys and natal girls will have sex in that setting. I want to protect my child from the obvious risk of pregnancy but also having sex too early when she is not mature enough. I'm amazed that the GG have not thought of some of these risks, they have always struck me as excellent and trustworthy. They have great processes when doing joint stuff with the (mainly) boys Scouts, surely they can think of a good way to not throw the baby out with the bath water ?